John Marion: Now is time for a People’s Pledge

One by one the candidates for governor of Rhode Island are declaring their intentions. In press conferences and campaign videos they are introducing themselves to potential voters and vowing to focus on...

Comment

By
John Marion
Posted Jan. 1, 2014 @ 12:01 am

One by one the candidates for governor of Rhode Island are declaring their intentions. In press conferences and campaign videos they are introducing themselves to potential voters and vowing to focus on the many important issues facing our state.

Common Cause is asking them all to take an important step toward making sure the election remains a positive one, and doesn’t become yet another notch on the belt of national special interest groups that want to score political points at the expense of the people of Rhode Island. That is why we are asking all candidates, and would-be candidates, to negotiate a People’s Pledge to keep outside money away from the governor’s race.

The first People’s Pledge was a cap on spending by the candidates in the 1996 U.S. Senate race between Massachusetts Gov. William Weld and Sen. John Kerry. Somewhat successful, the idea languished until 2012 when Sen. Scott Brown challenged Elizabeth Warren to swear off outside spending in their race. What changed between 1996 and 2012? The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United that corporations, unions and individuals had a First Amendment right to raise and spend unlimited amounts of outside money in support of or opposition to candidates.

The result has been an explosion in outside spending. In the 2012 elections, more than $200 million was spent by outside groups in state elections, according to the Center for Public Integrity, and according to opensecrets.org there was roughly $1 billion in outside spending in federal elections, up from approximately $300 million in the prior presidential election cycle.

How does a People’s Pledge work? In the Brown-Warren case the two candidates signed an agreement that bound them to make a contribution to a charity equal to 50 percent of the value of any outside advertising purchase made on behalf of their candidacy. Unlike in 1996, when the Weld-Kerry agreement broke down in the final days of the election, the 2012 Brown-Warren pact was an overwhelming success.

Outside spending often means money coming from outside of Rhode Island. According to the CPI report on the 2012 elections, “More than one out of every two dollars spent originated from groups funded primarily or entirely by out-of-state donors.” If we’re going to have an honest discussion about what problems face our state it shouldn’t be coming from out-of-state special interests that want to advance their ideological agendas.

Beyond the fact that outside spending often comes from outside the state, the ads produced using outside money are much more negative than those produced by the candidates themselves. A Common Cause Massachusetts study of the 2012 Brown-Warren pact shows that, compared with similar races without a People’s Pledge, the Brown-Warren race had far fewer attack ads, despite being the most expensive U.S. Senate race in history. When candidates fund the ads they are much less likely to attack their opponents, and more likely to discuss their issue positions.

The Massachusetts example tells us that a People’s Pledge not only results in a more positive campaign but also one where there is greater public disclosure of the source of the spending, and more emphasis placed on small contributions. Common Cause Massachusetts found that in the three comparable states without a Pledge the contributions of just 15 Super PAC donors equaled those of 175,000 individual donors to the candidates’ campaigns. Furthermore, there was five times more undisclosed, or “dark,” money in the three comparable races than there was in the Brown-Warren contest.

The benefits are clear; a People’s Pledge can result in a campaign with less outside spending, more positive messages, smaller donations and less undisclosed spending.

The Brown-Warren pact was tailored to their race, and the same can happen with a Rhode Island People’s Pledge. Each candidate has his or her strengths and weaknesses when it comes to outside support and a Pledge can reflect those.

In Massachusetts, it took significant back-and-forth between the candidates’ campaigns to agree to a Pledge. Mayor Taveras has issued a challenge to other candidates, and it’s a positive first step. We are happy that Treasurer Raimondo stated her willingness to consider the idea, and hope all other candidates and would-be candidates in both party primaries consider the idea.

Even though we’ve seen the first so-called Super PAC vow to begin its efforts at the beginning of 2014, it’s not too late for a Pledge. The Brown-Warren Pledge was proposed and adopted after outside groups had already begun their assaults.

Rhode Island deserves an election where we hear directly from the candidates and not a parade of negative outside special-interest groups. For the future of our state let’s insist that the candidates give us straight talk and honest answers. Let’s insist on a People’s Pledge.